Robert Scheer's excellent article in the LA Times yesterday points out the contradictions in Hillary's positions on Iraq and the military-industrial complex that we've been warned about since Eisenhower. Because she is a woman trying to overcome the "Geraldine Ferraro Effect" ('Is she tough enough?"), she projects more willingness to use the American military to accomplish imperial aims than just about anybody else. THIS IS A BIG PROBLEM FOR THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT AT THIS JUNCTURE.
What in the world was Sen. Hillary Clinton thinking when she attacked Sen. Barack Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in going after Osama bin Laden? And why aren't her supporters more concerned about yet another egregious example of Clinton's consistent backing for the mindless militarism that is dragging this nation to ruin? So what that she is pro-choice and a woman if the price of proving her capacity to be commander in chief is that we end up with an American version of Margaret Thatcher?
(Confession: I'm an Edwards supporter who would strongly support Obama if he were the candidate.)
It is ironic to me that the white male candidate is the one best positioned to actually deliver a progressive agenda to the American people, because he gets the class issue and has the abiliity to connect beyond the coastal core of Democratic support. BUT IT'S TRUE.
Scheer again:
Given her sorry record of cheerleading the irrational post-Cold War military buildup, do we not have a right, indeed an obligation, to question Clinton's whether Clinton is committed to creating a more peaceful world? Don't say that we weren't warned if a President Hillary Clinton further imperils our world, as she has clearly positioned herself as the leading hawk in the Democratic field. What other reason was there for first blasting Obama for daring to state that he would meet with foreign leaders whom Bush has branded as sworn enemies, and then for the attack on Obama's very sensible statement that it would be "a profound mistake" to use nuclear weapons in Pakistan and Afghanistan in the attempt to eliminate bin Laden?
Kos has led us out of the wilderness of over 25 years of Republican dominionism--I'm counting Bill's presidency as and eddy in the flow, and even though he brought peace and proseperity for middle class Americans (no small feat!), the Republicans STILL FRAMED THE DEBATE. We are now in a position to REFRAME the terms of the agenda. We must grasp the freedom that the historic opportuity presents us, and that we have EARNED through our struggle.
THIS IS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK ON HILLARY. I am pointing to where she derives her power from.
Act or reality, it's working. Pundits for the National Review, The Weekly Standard and other pro-war outlets have come to applaud Clinton. A host of political scientists and other campaign hustlers have also approved this image makeover; as a recent Boston Globe headline put it, "Tough talk drives Clinton effort: National security stance seen adding to image of strength." One political scientist from Texas stated: "She's come off as credible and serious on national defense--an issue that two years ago most of us would have thought would be a liability for her." The Globe noted that "When Geraldine Ferraro was the Democratic candidate for vice president in 1984, she was dogged by questions about whether she could 'push the button' to launch an attack if the Cold War turned hot." The paper then quoted Ferraro as saying that Clinton, whom she supports for president, has passed that test: "You can't do that with Hillary Clinton. Hillary is in a totally different place."
It is possible we are coming to a place where we can rewrite the whole script; and lord knows we need to given how far BushCheneyRove have gone toward the destruction of our democratic experiment. Is Hillary's ambition to become the first woman president AT THAT COST worth it?
Great, so forget the hope that a woman president might prove to be more enlightened than macho men in the matter of peacemaking, and instead rest assured that Hillary would have the cojones to "push the button" that would kill us all. Once again, the old Clintonian tactic of triangulation: positioning oneself politically instead of taking a position of integrity.
I write this as a guy who has supported the feminist revolution for longer than many readers of this have been alive-- I would put the amount of domestic drugery I have done to support my family and in particular my wife's efforts to direct a progressive non-profit organization next to anyone's. As progressives, we must be sophisticated enough to not be so predictable. If our opponent is thinking "With a woman candidate who has a serious chance of becoming president, they won't inspect her goods too closely." We must analyse deeply and not be afraid to dream big and act boldly.
(Forgive my lack of technical sophistication--I'm a relatively green diarist.
And please forgive the excessive use of caps.)
The whole Scheer article can be found here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...